If John McCain were to drop dead of a heart attack (at the ripe old age of 71), and the Republicans were to draft Condi as a replacement, would this constitute progress in American race relations? Or do you need more than skin color to qualify as a progressive candidate? (there are still some people out there that demand that a political actor shares their interests and ideology before they offer them any form of support- but those people are "way out there" in the sense of being nowhere near the center of American political society, or the levers of American power. The American Power-Elite has a very specific vetting process before it allows anyone near said levers, the first stop: AIPAC. We know where it goes from there...).
But not to worry, I'm sure that Iraqis feel much better knowing that it was Collin Powell (instead of a White Man) who sold the American war against their country to the UN. Don't forget Colored Folk can carry the White Man's Burden as well as anyone.
Melanie McAllister, in her book Epic Encounters seems a bit flummoxed by these kinds of phenomena. In her chapter, "Military Multiculturalism" she can't quite figure out how militarism and imperialism can co-exist in the same cultural space as multiculturalism (aren't these two things polar opposites??). General Powell, and the dark skinned troops he commanded represent the broadening of American identity, but these same forces perpetrated the Highway of Death.[1] McAllister can't quite figure out how this could be so.
David Harvey in The New Imperialism suffers no such confusion. For him, militarism and imperialism are all too eager to incorporate ethnic minorities and gender majorities into the complex of Captial and Empire- as this facade of inclusion (reality in some cases) performs an essential legitimating function. Its no mistake that Bush 41 sent Clarence Thomas up there, or that Bush 43 put Condi and Collin in key positions. Malcolm X used to have a term for these kinds of people. It looks like the Dems have finally figured out to game the system (after 40 years in the Wilderness).
Drawing on the Malcom X - David Harvey tradition of political analysis, one might think in terms of "Multicultural Militarism" instead of "Military Multiculturalism."
[1] Interesting footnote on Gulf War II (1991) and American "racial inclusivity": At the time of the War, African Americans represented 13% of the total US population, but 20% of the American armed forces, and 25% percent of American combat troops. Who needs a draft when you have structural racism and a permanent underclass? Structural racism, now there a term you won't here in an American presidential campaign. If we listen to Obama the problem is African-Americans' culture of irresponsibility (oh, if only they would work hard enough to go to Harvard or Stanford they might be able to develop an ethic of responsibility... Where'd Obama's dad go to school again, oh yeah, it was Harvard...). Or as he likes to say, the Government can't sit down with your child and teach them how to read or speak the Queens' English (but it can bomb countries half way around the globe, and throw people in jail for growing marijuana...). He's not proposing policy solutions to the problems of exploitation and underdevelopment (what Harvey calls "uneven geographical development"). Heaven forbid we actually use the levers of American power to alter the balance of class forces in American society...
A couple concrete things on structural racism and the Obama campaign:
1. The Drug War
2. The Death Penalty
3. Discrimintion in labor, housing, and credit markets
4. Geographically uneven school funding
5. The de-industrialization of America (African Americans' traditional avenue for social mobility-- think NAFTA and Free Trade)
6. Health care and life expectancy rates (Universal health care anyone?)
7. American Military Engagements
I'm sure the list could go on. But this should suffice, as on each of these concrete points, Obama and McCain are on one side, and I am on another.
No comments:
Post a Comment